turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Alien space bats
Do we really want to keep this? I vote no. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:03, July 18, 2015 (UTC) :No. I get so sick of the concept of "plausibility" being applied to AH as some sort of objective standard, that there is an "absolute truth" to writing AH as fiction. By definition, plausibility is subjective. TR (talk) 15:54, July 18, 2015 (UTC) ::I disagree. I think it has some valid literary criticism and should be categorized as such, in addition to the two stories. While "plausibility" is elastic and subjective, it doesn't imply that there is an "absolute truth" only that it is more, or less plausible. I do think this article may need to be worked on though. :::I just checked on our Point of Divergence article, it's pretty much just a dictionary definition. Before letting this article stand, I'd like to see that expanded, listing the POD of every AH story. If we did that, we might find there's room for commentary, such as listing them in order of most to least plausible. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:46, July 18, 2015 (UTC) ::Also, my understanding of ASB is that its originator made specific reference to Guns of the South. He called his online blog posting of a successful Nazi invasion of Britain Bats of the South in direct homage and his story introduction made reference to Turtledove and GotS. ML4E (talk) 16:18, July 18, 2015 (UTC) ::::As I recall, the definition of ASB (which I had by way of Mak in the Better Board days) specifically excludes time travel-related PODs. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:46, July 18, 2015 (UTC) :::::That is how the definition evolved but the originator of the term was originally mocking GotS (see below). ML4E (talk) 18:45, July 20, 2015 (UTC) :::If I'd never spent anytime at AH.com and other such places, I might reconsider. But the fact is that most AH fans do use "plausibility" as an objective standard, or rather as camouflage for sour grapes. "Author X didn't read my mind and use my interpretation of history or cool idea for their story, or focus on something I really think they should have. Therefore, their work is implausible." But I'm certain that this page will immediately go that route, with people posting whatever plot-decision HT made that they just didn't like and calling it implausible. ::::I confess I hadn't either. I got my information from http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlienSpaceBats. ML4E (talk) 18:45, July 20, 2015 (UTC) :::Remember in the early days of the inconsistency page, someone posted things like "the Socialists of 191 should have intuitively known about the New Deal" and "the Gimpels shouldn't have had pictures of their dead ancestors." That approach would almost be unavoidable here, and we'd spend a great deal of time policing this page. :::Moreover, the first thing we have here from 191 is McClellan's use of Special Orders 191. First off, we have that at the inconsistencies page. Second, I think the discussion of it both here and at the inconsistencies page misses the point of what HT did. HT isn't saying that McClellan's use of Lee's plans gave him some special advantage. Lee was counting on surprise, and by having the plans, McClellan was aware Lee was coming, and could meet him with all his timidity. In HFR, McClellan just doesn't know Lee is coming, and that's how he loses. (This also doubles as my argument for removing this section from the Inconsistencies page, BTW.) ::::The more I think about it, the more I agree. There was that charming speech by HT you found for us on YouTube winter before last, in it he addressed this point head on. I still disagreed. However, you're right that it's subjective. (Now if you had McClellan do something bold and decisive that resulted in the Maryland Campaign becoming a total Union victory, that might be another matter.) Turtle Fan (talk) 17:46, July 18, 2015 (UTC) :::The JS section is fair, but I'm not sure that we need an article to discuss things like that when we have the articles on the novel and the story; logical places to address the mass immigration of Stalin's close aides. TR (talk) 17:14, July 18, 2015 (UTC) ::::I've said elsewhere that it would be nice if HT had made as his POD for the JS novel some sort of disaster in the late-nineteenth century Caucasus that led to mass emigration. (That, or give all the supporting roles to American characters, historical or fictional; that would have been my preference.) "Everyone who would have been the parent of a Politburo member in OTL independently decides to move to America" is pretty implausible, but it's within the realm of the possible and doesn't require intervention by SF or supernatural elements. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:46, July 18, 2015 (UTC) With the "Must and Shall" addition, I'm afraid TR's worst fears about how this page will be abused have come true. I move we delete immediately. Also, the United States did not "conquer" the Confederate States. It defeated the rebellion that sought to bring forth a government by that name, but that never succeeded in doing so. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:55, July 19, 2015 (UTC) :This is an excellent example my argument that ASB is purely subjective. ::"'Must and Shall' is based on the premise that the United States conquered the Confederate States in the 1860s, as in OTL, but Reconstruction was so poorly mismanaged that the Southern states were still attempting further rebellions in the 1940s. :TF already addressed the "conquest" part. But the issues isn't that Reconstruction was "mismanaged" but that it was so oppressive (now, we can have a debate as to whether oppressive rule is mismanagement, but frankly, the OTL Reconstruction fits in with my understanding of the word "mismanagement" more than M&S does). ::"The alien space bat is that Europe somehow has the same history as in OTL, including the Nazis who figure prominently in the plot." ::The US was very isolationist between the time of the Civil War and WWI. I personally find it very plausible that a US determined to clamp down on the South would be at least as politically isolationist as in OTL (if not more so), allowing Europe to follow on its course as it did in OTL. I doubt anyone in the world would care more about US rule in the South than they did about any of the brutality of colonization elsewhere in the world. ::"This is somewhat implausible because the weak United States of the story probably couldn't have enabled an Entente victory in World War I, which in turn is a crucial requirement for the Nazi Reich to exist at all." ::Nothing suggests the US is weaker than in OTL. If anything, HT gives strong hints that the US is at least as militarized a state as it was in TL-191. The industrial base in the North is certainly intact and humming along just fine; harsh Reconstruction wouldn't change that a bit. Given the necessity of keeping a lid on the South, the US of M&S is probably stronger militarily in 1914 than the real US was. While there appears to have been a leeriness about joining WWI as in OTL, once it did, it was in a perfectly good position to support the Entente's victory, and in turn lay the ground work for WWII and Nazism. ::Given the scenario HT presents, I don't find Europe's parallel progress ASB at all. TR (talk) 19:28, July 19, 2015 (UTC) Having read the comments you have made and seen the new "Must and Shall' sub-section, I agree that this will quickly become a gripe article and so should be deleted to forestall that development. I think expanding the Point of Divergence article to describe HT's PODs is an excellent idea. ML4E (talk) 18:45, July 20, 2015 (UTC) :I was going to add that, even if an ASB article were worthwhile, this one defines ASB as one thing and then flat-out tells you it's going to be something else. Imagine if the Shakespearean Allusions page said "HT has often referenced Shakespeare, but what follows is a list of references to classical mythology instead." (Though even that's generous, the real analog would be "Here's a list of lines that in one person's opinion are so strangely worded that they sound as though they're quoting some poem I don't know.") :However, while I welcome the consensus for deletion, I think we should leave it up for a little while, for two reasons. One is that the various sections may yet prove useful as we expand the POD article. The other is that we'll want to find a way to let Jonathan down easy: He's come back to this article since he created it, and will likely do so again at some point; and he doesn't seem to be aware of this discussion. He meant well with this thing and seems enthusiastic about participating, so we don't want to alienate him. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:13, July 21, 2015 (UTC) Realized we haven't resolved this one. ML4E (talk) 17:19, July 30, 2015 (UTC) :I'm still in favor of deletion. And I'm no longer overly concerned with sparing Jonathan's feelings, because since my last comment on this page he's really been proving himself more trouble than he's worth. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:31, July 30, 2015 (UTC)